On Wed, Mar 02, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022, Mingwei Zhang wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Now that tdp_mmu_next_root() can process both valid and invalid roots,
> > > extend it to be able to process _only_ invalid roots, add yet another
> > > iterator macro for walking invalid roots, and use the new macro in
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_zap_invalidated_roots().
> > >
> > > No functional change intended.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c | 74 ++++++++++++++------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > index debf08212f12..25148e8b711d 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/tdp_mmu.c
> > > @@ -98,6 +98,12 @@ void kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> > > call_rcu(&root->rcu_head, tdp_mmu_free_sp_rcu_callback);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +enum tdp_mmu_roots_iter_type {
> > > + ALL_ROOTS = -1,
> > > + VALID_ROOTS = 0,
> > > + INVALID_ROOTS = 1,
> > > +};
> >
> > I am wondering what the trick is to start from -1?
>
> -1 is arbitrary, any non-zero value would work. More below.
>
> > > /*
> > > * Returns the next root after @prev_root (or the first root if @prev_root is
> > > * NULL). A reference to the returned root is acquired, and the reference to
> > > @@ -110,10 +116,16 @@ void kvm_tdp_mmu_put_root(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_mmu_page *root,
> > > */
> > > static struct kvm_mmu_page *tdp_mmu_next_root(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > struct kvm_mmu_page *prev_root,
> > > - bool shared, bool only_valid)
> > > + bool shared,
> > > + enum tdp_mmu_roots_iter_type type)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_mmu_page *next_root;
> > >
> > > + kvm_lockdep_assert_mmu_lock_held(kvm, shared);
> > > +
> > > + /* Ensure correctness for the below comparison against role.invalid. */
> > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!!VALID_ROOTS || !INVALID_ROOTS);
> > > +
> > > rcu_read_lock();
> > >
> > > if (prev_root)
> > > @@ -125,7 +137,7 @@ static struct kvm_mmu_page *tdp_mmu_next_root(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > typeof(*next_root), link);
> > >
> > > while (next_root) {
> > > - if ((!only_valid || !next_root->role.invalid) &&
> > > + if ((type == ALL_ROOTS || (type == !!next_root->role.invalid)) &&
>
> This is the code that deals with the enums. It's making the type a tri-state,
> where the values of VALID_ROOTS and INVALID_ROOTS align with converting role.invalid
> to a boolean (always '0' or '1') so that they can be directly compared as above.
>
> Any value for ALL_ROOTS (other than '0' or '1' obviously) would work since the
> above logic requires ALL_ROOTS to be explicitly checked first.
>
yeah, I see that. The other thing I feel strange is the that VALID_ROOTS
is _0_ while INVALID_ROOTS is _1_. But when I see !!next_root->role.invalid,
that solves my concerns.
> > > kvm_tdp_mmu_get_root(next_root))
> > > break;
> > >
